The Relationship Between Nomophobia and Alexithymia in Nurse Interns: Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study is to examine the relationship between nomophobia and alexithymia in intern nursing students. Material and Methods: The universe of the research consisted of intern students of Atatürk University Nursing Faculty (n=250). The sample of the study consisted of students who used smart phones and volunteered to participate in the research (n=207). Post hoc power analysis was performed to determine the adequacy of the sample size of the study. In the power analysis, it was determined that the power of the study was 0.99 at the significance level of 0.05 and at the 95% confidence interval. Sociodemographic Data Form, Nomophobia Scale and Toronto Alexithymia Scale were used in the study. Data analysis was done with SPSS program. Results: It was found that of the students on the Nomophobia Scale mean score was 69.55±27.74; the Toronto Alexithymia Scale mean score was 51.12±11.15 It was determined that 44% of the students had moderate nomophobia, 15% had extreme nomophobia, and 28% had alexithymia. As a result of the research, it was determined that there was a positive and significant correlation between the mean scores of the Nomophobia Scale and the Alexithymia Scale (p<0.05). Conclusion: It was determined that the students had moderate nomophobia and alexithymia and they affected each other. As the level of nomophobia of the students increases, the level of alexithymia also increases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".